We all know that Chuck has counted to infinity, twice! So if Chuck is a VtES player, the following could be said about him. “Marandamir” on the VtES Presence forumcame up with this list of important information:

Chuck can oust you simply by standing near you!

Chuck can oust you even when you aren’t playing VtES!

When Chuck bleeds you for your last pool you don’t get ousted… you get Chuck‘d

Chuck doesn’t tap cards, he stares at them and the table rotates 90 degrees.

Chuck doesn’t play reaction cards, Chuck doesn’t react, he knows what you are going to do before you do it (often because he told you to do it the turn before).

Chuck has no predator as he is nobody’s prey. Chuck‘s prey is every VtES player present, including judges and their children.

Chuck’s bleeds cannot be bounced or blocked. They can only be accepted square in the face followed promptly by a “Thank you, Chuck“.

If, by some incredible space-time paradox, Chuck would ever play against himself, he’d win. Period.

When playing cards Chuck doesn’t pay attention to Errata. Cards do whatever Chuck says they to do.

When time runs out in a game with Chuck there is no draw. Chuck gets 5 VPs just for being merciful and allowing you to live that long.

LSJ doesn’t decide on rulings for VtES. LSJ isn’t even a person. He’s a puppet that Chuck controls.

When Chuck is out of cards he doesn’t withdraw from the game, he advances the game.

If you find yourself ousted in a game of VtES, you are obviously not Chuck.

A brown bear once tried to Revelation’s Chuck’s hand. At the shear horror of what he saw he turned white out of fear. Chuck then ousted him so hard he landed at the north pole. Hence the polar bear came to be.

Chuck can oust without minion’s or VtES cards. He just taps the VtES game and everyone is ousted.

P.S.: Down in Texas Chuck’s name is really Andy, but read the full story here.

The Anarchs seek to disrupt the resurgence of the Sabbat and Independents. It’s all on the line and the Anarchs have nothing to lose.”

The next VtES expansion is named “Twilight Rebellion” and is a mini-expansion featuring 60 new cards. As usual for the mini-expansions, there are just booster packs, but no starters. On the other hand this means that there are no reprints in this set, only shiny new cards, most likely 20 commons, 20 vampires and 20 rares. The set is scheduled for May 31st, 2008.

The set’s theme is the Anarch movement within the vampiric society, and continues the support for the Anarchs, that started with the expansion with the same name in 2003.

These are the results of the “Death in a Song” VtES Constructed tournament in Bochum, Germany after 3 rounds + finals. The tournament was played on January 27th, 2008 with 13 players participating. Here are the standings after the final round.

Ralf L.— 2 GW 7 VP — 1 GW 4 VP — Fighting Dom Weenies

Sascha M. — 1 GW 5 VP — 1 VP — Old School DOM/OBF S&B

Martin S. — 1 GW 4 VP — 0 VP — High Cap DOM/FOR/CEL/PRO Bloat&Vote

Hardy R. — 1 GW 3,5 VP — 0VP — Giovanni Powerbleed

Barbara W. — 1 GW 3 VP — 0 VP — Ahrimanes Wall

This was the first tournament in Bochum with the changed tournament rules, where there’s only a winner and four 2nd places in the finals. This change had real impact on the final, since no one was jockeying for the 2nd or 3rd third place. A full account of the standings including the tournament winning deck can be found in the german VtES forum (requires an account/login).

I tried to make some pictures from the tournament, but since I fumbled with the photo flash of the camera, all of the pictures I took turned out to be way too dark. My apologies

.. if Valerius Maior, Hell’s Fool (ADV) or”Arnulf Jormungandrsson do not need to block successfully an action to prevent, that action modifiers of the named disciplines (in their cardtext) are played, the attempt to block is sufficient?
So, if Valerius Major attempts to block a hunt by Arika, and fails (by not playing any intercept), she’s still not allowed to play Obfuscate modifiers to give her additional stealth after Neighbour John has attempted to block subsequently.